Paredes, Jovany Jampher

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that expert’s testimony did not violate Confrontation Clause because expert “did not introduce or testify regarding a formal report or assertion from a non-testifying analyst”
• concluding that testing DNA expert “used non-testimonial information—computer-generated DNA data—to form an independent, testimonial opinion and appellant was given the opportunity to cross-examine her about her analysis.”
• holding that admission of testimonial lab report through surrogate testimony violates Confrontation Clause
• stating that the admission of a forensic lab report created solely by a non-testifying scientist violates the Confrontation Clause
• holding DNA profiles—“the raw, computer- generated data”—to be nontestimonial because data did not come from a witness capable of being cross-examined, but were produced by a computer
• discussing Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), and Burch v. State, 401 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).